DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 27, 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Laser-induced electrochemical thinning of MoS2” to Sunamura et al. (Sunamura).
As to claims 1, 2, 6 and 12, Sunamura teaches a method of thinning a transition metal dichalcogenide material, MoS2, the method comprising illuminating a first location of the material with a thickness greater than a monolayer with electromagnetic radiation from a laser while applying a positive potential from a power source between a source electrode (working electrode) provided on a transparent substrate (cover glass) on which the material is located such that the source electrode is electrically connected to the material and a gate electrode (counter electrode) not in physical contact with the material with an aqueous solution disposed on the surface of the substrate such that the material, the source electrode and the gate electrode are each at least partially submerged in the solution and electrically connected therewith, the MoS2 having a direct band gap and direct band gap energy at a monolayer thickness and an indirect bandgap and indirect band gap energy at a layer with a thickness larger than a monolayer, the method operating by promoting electrons from the valence band to the conductive ban of the indirect band gap to decrease the thickness of the material in a self-limiting fashion once decreased to a monolayer as the energy is insufficient to promote electrons from the valance band to the conduction band of the direct band gap (Abstract; Laser Thinning; Fig. 1; Fig. 2).
As to claim 27, Sunamura teaches the method of claim 1. Sunamura further teaches that the first location can be illuminated for, for example, 1 second or 10 seconds (Laser Thinning).
As to claim 45, Sunamura teaches the method of claim 1. Sunamura teaches that an area in which the laser contacts is located in a plane area of the substrate such that the thickness of the material is decreased to a monolayer over the area that the laser contacts (Abstract; Laser Thinning; Fig. 1; Fig. 2).
As to claim 46, Sunamura teaches the method of claim 1. Sunamura further teaches that the substrate is merely a cover for laser thinning operation and that the thinned material is separated from this substrate, thus creating a free-standing thinned material (Laser Thinning; Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunamura as applied to claim 1 above, and as further discussed below.
As to claim 4, Sunamura teaches the method of claim 1. Sunamura fails to specifically teach that the power density of the laser if from 0.1 to 30 mW per square micrometer. However, Sunamura specifically teaches that the laser power, and thus the power density, is an importance characteristic for speed and control the thinning (Page 3270, Column 2, Paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the power density in view of desired speed vs. control decisions as desired as taught by Sunamura.
Claims 9, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sunamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2016/108139 A1 to Cronin et al. (Cronin).
As to claims 9, 29, 30, 35 and 37, Sunamura teaches the method of claim 1. However, Sunamura fails to further teach that the laser light source is configured to illuminate a mirror. However, Sunamura is focusing on the technique itself, rather than specific real world applications. However, Cronin discusses real world application of laser etched thin films and teaches that the etching is utilized to form a variety of patterns rather than merely a single point (Background of the invention). Cronin teaches that the patterns can be precisely achieved via utilizing the laser in combination with a mirror for reflecting the laser to a laser spot on the material at a location to be etched and an actuator for moving the mirror and corresponding laser spot (Page 3, Line 36 to Page 4 Line 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the laser of Sunamura with a laser reflecting off a mirror in order to allow for moving of the laser spot and precise control of pattern forming for real world applications as taught by Cronin. Thus a mirror that is moved, translocated, to provide illumination to a plurality of sequential locations to form a pattern, the illumination of the later locations operating the same as the first location and thus self-limiting.
As to claim 33, the combination of Sunamura and Cronin teaches the method of claim 29. Sunamura further teaches that the locations can be illuminated for, for example, 1 second or 10 seconds (Laser Thinning), and thus in combination each of the locations.
As to claim 38, the combination of Sunamura and Cronin teaches the method of claim 35. Sunamura further teaches that the locations can be illuminated for, for example, 1 second or 10 seconds (Laser Thinning), and thus in combination each of the locations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the method for a total amount of time within 10 minutes depending on the pattern desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights